opentype

Moreover, Anton can said to the post "I am Anton Popov from Leninskaya street, d. 16. Love cooking, my weigh is 80 kg, red eyes. I'm a christian, have a vegetovascular dystonia. Bisexual"
Bertha quoted Anton.
Certha copy-paste part of Anton's post directly.
Dertha made a screenshot of Anton's post, save it to local computer. And after some time posted it. Don't care about behavior. But. Some time later Anton made a account removal request and his account and data deleted and anonimyzed. After that Dertha posted screenshot.
I just want to say - you can't manage personal data information, stored as a part of content. If you try to do that - you can fail on the time, when someone post personal data after delete. So you (and moders) don't know anything about Anton, so you can't know about his previous delete. Of can? If can - you dont' clean up his ) Our lawyer get an answer for that question from our Controller. He said - content posted by users became a part of public domain. And for better understanding that we put the notify about that to top of all editors. May be that is too much for that. But we want to provide better service and undestanding to our users.

1) They don’t. Hackers and scammers are identified and prosecuted all the time. Not all of them, maybe not even most of them, but they are. 
2) Even if your claim would be entirely true, it would be irrelevant! There is no logical connection from “some people cannot be identified” to “therefore IPs cannot be personal data in general”, i.e. it is a logical fallacy when you make that connection. It is not a requirement of personal data to clearly identify an individual in every situation. My name might be used dozens of times in my country — in fact it actually is. Many people will share my birthday. My address might be shared by many people over the course of years. So having a piece of this type of information might not be enough to identify me clearly in any situation. And still: That doesn’t mean those pieces of information are NOT personal data. They are, because they relate to me in one way or another — and so can an IP address. 

1) They don’t. Hackers and scammers are identified and prosecuted all the time. Not all of them, maybe not even most of them, but they are. 
2) Even if your claim would be entirely true, it would be irrelevant! There is no logical connection from “some people cannot be identified” to “therefore IPs cannot be personal data in general”, i.e. it is a logical fallacy when you make that connection. It is not a requirement of personal data to clearly identify an individual in every situation. My name might be used dozens of times in my country — in fact it actually is. Many people will share my birthday. My address might be shared by many people over the course of years. So having a piece of this type of information might not be enough to identify me clearly in any situation. And still: That doesn’t mean those pieces of information are NOT personal data. They are, because they relate to me in one way or another — and so can an IP address. 

Many? Most? Really? Sorry, but I don’t think those are honest claims. You happened to found one—that’s far from many or even most. 
My tip: read the GDRP text yourself. It clearly addresses this. If the processing of data was necessary anyway, the GDRP changes nothing. Shipping a product requires a shipping address. A contact form requires a way to reply to the request. GDRP doesn’t change that. It’s in there. 

Many? Most? Really? Sorry, but I don’t think those are honest claims. You happened to found one—that’s far from many or even most. 
My tip: read the GDRP text yourself. It clearly addresses this. If the processing of data was necessary anyway, the GDRP changes nothing. Shipping a product requires a shipping address. A contact form requires a way to reply to the request. GDRP doesn’t change that. It’s in there. 

I really doubt European experts said something like that. It’s just clearly wrong over here. Ownership of intellection property cannot be transferred in Europe. Either community content isn’t intellectual property at all, e.g. a short comment. Then no one really owns it. Or it is intellectual property, e.g. a gallery picture the user has taken himself or an article or article-like forum post. In this case the intellectual property is owned by the creator for life (and his family for a certain time after his death). So the web provider will never “own the content”. Never! It’s legally impossible. The European creator can’t even give it up if he wanted to. What he can do is issue usage rights. And that is something that needs to be clarified in the terms—upfront. 
Wether this type of “data” needs to be seen as part of the upcoming GDRP rules, well, that’s open for debate at this point it seems. 

It makes perfect sense and you even gave the explanations. Your imprint provides information legally necessary, so of course they need to be correct. If you intentionally or unintentionally make your business appear bigger than it actually is, than that is indeed “competitive distortion”. You registered you business. You know what it is and you can put that on your websites. And as business owner you have the responsibility to know about these issues. So you made a mistake and you paid for it. And all that has nothing to do with GDPR …

I really doubt European experts said something like that. It’s just clearly wrong over here. Ownership of intellection property cannot be transferred in Europe. Either community content isn’t intellectual property at all, e.g. a short comment. Then no one really owns it. Or it is intellectual property, e.g. a gallery picture the user has taken himself or an article or article-like forum post. In this case the intellectual property is owned by the creator for life (and his family for a certain time after his death). So the web provider will never “own the content”. Never! It’s legally impossible. The European creator can’t even give it up if he wanted to. What he can do is issue usage rights. And that is something that needs to be clarified in the terms—upfront. 
Wether this type of “data” needs to be seen as part of the upcoming GDRP rules, well, that’s open for debate at this point it seems. 

I really doubt European experts said something like that. It’s just clearly wrong over here. Ownership of intellection property cannot be transferred in Europe. Either community content isn’t intellectual property at all, e.g. a short comment. Then no one really owns it. Or it is intellectual property, e.g. a gallery picture the user has taken himself or an article or article-like forum post. In this case the intellectual property is owned by the creator for life (and his family for a certain time after his death). So the web provider will never “own the content”. Never! It’s legally impossible. The European creator can’t even give it up if he wanted to. What he can do is issue usage rights. And that is something that needs to be clarified in the terms—upfront. 
Wether this type of “data” needs to be seen as part of the upcoming GDRP rules, well, that’s open for debate at this point it seems. 

Probably. But there aren’t just the people working for the governments. It’s a common business model for private law firms to find legal problems on websites and send out formal warnings with a large fee. For those companies, the new regulations could be another gold rush. 

I really doubt European experts said something like that. It’s just clearly wrong over here. Ownership of intellection property cannot be transferred in Europe. Either community content isn’t intellectual property at all, e.g. a short comment. Then no one really owns it. Or it is intellectual property, e.g. a gallery picture the user has taken himself or an article or article-like forum post. In this case the intellectual property is owned by the creator for life (and his family for a certain time after his death). So the web provider will never “own the content”. Never! It’s legally impossible. The European creator can’t even give it up if he wanted to. What he can do is issue usage rights. And that is something that needs to be clarified in the terms—upfront. 
Wether this type of “data” needs to be seen as part of the upcoming GDRP rules, well, that’s open for debate at this point it seems. 

Probably. But there aren’t just the people working for the governments. It’s a common business model for private law firms to find legal problems on websites and send out formal warnings with a large fee. For those companies, the new regulations could be another gold rush. 

No! This is where people take GDPR too far and misunderstand the point. Of course a contact form requires contact data and contact data to be stored. Just as ordering a product requires a shipping and billing address to be stored. You don’t need addition consent. The GDPR changes nothing in that regard and requires nothing new. 
You just shouldn’t ask for more information than necessary and you shouldn’t use it for other purposes. When the contact form signs the user up for a marketing email list without his knowledge and consent – well, you can’t do that anymore. (And you shouldn’t have done it in the past.)

No! This is where people take GDPR too far and misunderstand the point. Of course a contact form requires contact data and contact data to be stored. Just as ordering a product requires a shipping and billing address to be stored. You don’t need addition consent. The GDPR changes nothing in that regard and requires nothing new. 
You just shouldn’t ask for more information than necessary and you shouldn’t use it for other purposes. When the contact form signs the user up for a marketing email list without his knowledge and consent – well, you can’t do that anymore. (And you shouldn’t have done it in the past.)

No! This is where people take GDPR too far and misunderstand the point. Of course a contact form requires contact data and contact data to be stored. Just as ordering a product requires a shipping and billing address to be stored. You don’t need addition consent. The GDPR changes nothing in that regard and requires nothing new. 
You just shouldn’t ask for more information than necessary and you shouldn’t use it for other purposes. When the contact form signs the user up for a marketing email list without his knowledge and consent – well, you can’t do that anymore. (And you shouldn’t have done it in the past.)

Or this, which I use:
 

Removing the image emoticons deletes the files. But you can keep a backup and upload them to the old location so they don’t break for older posts. 

That’s nothing new by the way. If you want to run legal websites that do any kind of business, you need to show yourself. If you want people to follow your terms or purchase something, that’s a contract with responsibilities and both parties need to know who they are even dealing with. 

Removing the image emoticons deletes the files. But you can keep a backup and upload them to the old location so they don’t break for older posts. 

That’s nothing new by the way. If you want to run legal websites that do any kind of business, you need to show yourself. If you want people to follow your terms or purchase something, that’s a contract with responsibilities and both parties need to know who they are even dealing with. 

For me the number one reason for members to subscribe is that they get access to discount codes for one of the largest outdoorshops in my country. I have had a discountcodes since 2013 that give them 20% discount on everything in that large shop.
And then I have an agreement with the outdoorshop that I get a percentage from what all the members are buying via tracking codes.
In that way I win in both ends. Members need to see that they gain something to pay.

I didn’t say “demo”, did I? I said this site you are writing on is running 4.3. 

Or this, which I use:
 

This site.